While there is a small and vocal anit peace movement out there, the majority of the American people understand and support our future actions in Iraq. The vast majority of people understand that this is not a war for oil as the anti peace people preach but a military action that should have been completed the first time, but because of a spineless UN it was not.

TUNDRA: Now the armchair warriors are attempting to re-write history. Former President George H. Bush recently conducted an interview in which he attempted to correct what he felt was a long-standing belief that he alone made the decision to stop the "Desert Storm" operation short of an invasion and occupation of Iraq. He made it clear in that interview that the U.S. entered that war with limited objectives that did not include an invasion of Iraq. Further, when the moment came to decide whether or not to follow-up the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and the virtual elimination of Saddam Hussein's "Republican Guard" it was a joint decision by President Bush, Colin Powell, and other members of the Bush Administration along with most of the military leaders involved in "Desert Storm." It is so easy to make allegations and to attempt to re-write history for one's own aims. But it is also nonsense; and, fortunately, nonsense has the ultimately fatal disadvantage of being nonsens. I suspect you and folks like "Dave" and "Flosum" have been listening to and emulating the style and mindset of that guru of reactionary conservatism, Rush Limbaugh. It's not a healthy intellectual diet.

Bob not sure what point you were trying to make, but I am not re writng history. Its fact that the UN said stop and we stopped. What GW should have done was gone into Baghdad and get Saddam and then say, "Oh by the way guys the spinelss UN says pull out."

You want to know what nonsense is Bob? YOU! And your constant attacking of other peoples’ ideas and opinions just because they may not agree with your bleeding heart liberal views.

I read Tundra’s post as simply her/his opinion that we should have eradicated Saddam in Desert Storm. That is an opinion that many people share including me…..and oh yeah, and a guy named Norman Schwarzkopf !

>>"Dave" and "Flosum" have been listening to and emulating the style and mindset of that guru of reactionary conservatism, Rush Limbaugh<<

For the record Bobbie! I think you should first know what the heck you are talking about before you become so accusatory….. For the Record, I have not heard a Rush Limbaugh show for over five years, since I divested myself form one of his pilot radio stations, purely for business reasons. Second, I support abortion on a lot levels no conservative can possible accept, and did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton nor do I support a lot of Bush’s tax plan. Any one of these ideas or positions would have me thrown form the ranks of the far right even if I tried to join up!

You seem to have a need to put people in little cubby holes that suits your own unfounded and often time dead wrong assumptions to fulfill your own inflated ego and support your pompous pontificating that discloses your superiority attitude. As far as you are concerned, everyone else is wrong and only Bob has the right answers. Putting people in the categories “you” need for them to be in, regardless of truths or facts makes it easier for you to attack contrary opinions and ideas. Typical liberal, it’s easier to discreet an idea or an opinion if first you perform a little character assassination on the one who has the idea. As far as you are concerned no one is entitled to an opinion unless “you” approve of it. You need to seek some help Bobbie!

I too have not listened to Rush in years. My position on the abortion issue is that government should keep its nose out of what should be a personal decision. Oddly enough, this will probably place me on the same sheet of music with Bob as I suspect this is his point of view as well, although I would never presume anything about him just to be safe. I heartily agree with Flosum. We are all entitled to our opinions, regardless how they were formed or what they are. Each opinion is probably as valid as any other in the long run. The purpose of message boards like this one is to provide people a forum in which to share their opinions and, hopefully, benefit from the process of doing so. If anyone really thinks that their opinons are somehow more valid or more important than anyone elses, I believe that they are fooling themselves as well as exhibiting some pretty substantial character flaws. I can say whatever I want about poor Bob and he can tear into Flosum for the fun of it, but at base level we are all about equal. Thank God we live in a country where all this is possible.

Wow! And I've been accused of "losing it." Read the post again, folks. Tundra's post argued that it was the UNITED NATIONS that prevented our troops from invading Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm. That is just not factually true. Further, I said that I SUSPECTED that Tundra and some other folks on this message board (who appear to move easily into personal -- even name -- ridicule) were emulating the mindset of that guru of uncivil talk on behalf of conservative causes, Rush Limbaugh.

On another topic: I wonder if our Webmaster still thinks we can afford to be comparatively unconcerned about North Korea and even the threat of terrorist attacks within this country while we focus on Iraq. Iraq is a country under intense scrutiny by all manner of intelligence-gathering equipment and inspectors moving apparently unimpeded all over looking at anything suspicious while close to 200,000 troops await on its borders and dozens of warships stand poised within easy range. Yet we are to believe that BECAUSE IRAQ MAY SOMEDAY POSE A THREAT we should invade and occupy that country. If we were to make a list of all the countries which have the potential for SOMEDAY posing a credible threat to us or our interests, then rank-order that list, we could probably plan on a foreign/military policy of an invasion-a-month for some considerable time. North Korea, on the other hand, poses a very serious and URGENT threat. (It hasn't "invaded" anyone for some time because we've had troops stationed there watching its every step since the end of the Korea "police action" in 1953.) Note: I AM NOT ADVOCATING WAR WITH NORTH KOREA. I'M MERELY POINTING TO WHAT I BELEIVE IS THE SERIOUSLY FLAWED REASONING THAT JUSTIFIES WAR WITH IRAQ UNDER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS BUT URGES DIPLOMACY WITH A NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR WHO IS CALLING FOR "ALL OUT WAR" WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS AND INTERMEDIATE-RANGE MISSILES. I believe better options exist in both cases, and I pray that cooler heads will prevail.

I see no argument in Trundra’s statement regarding the U.N. But even the most naive can possibly believe the decision not to go after Saddam was not influenced by the U. N.

Speaking of Rush I love this quote: "The Democrats want to 'go slow' when disarming Saddam Hussein, but they waste no time trying to get guns out of the hands of innocent, law-abiding Americans. If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is." --Rush Limbaugh

I had to visit his web page seeing how Bobbie keeps bringing Rush up… been years since I been there. They have done a great job on it… check it out.

Nurse Nell: It's pretty much useless to respond directly to Flosum; it's like playing with a tar baby, you just get dirty and sticky. I won't respond to Flosum and I'll wait for Dave to look up the definition of "status quo" in any dictionary or text on argumentation before I respond to him.

I'd recommend for all those who look into this message board the following websites:

>It's pretty much useless to respond directly to Flosum; it's like playing with a tar baby, you just get dirty and sticky.<

Of course this is not a personal insult. No! No! No! It can’t be!! You know why because Bobbie said it. That makes it some sort of brilliant.. ahhh? Brilliant what? What is it Bobbie if it’s not intended to be a personal insult? Hehehe

Ok, let’s put all the fun aside for just a minute.

Tell me Mr. Doolitle, is there anything specific that you could cause you to a initiate a military strike against Iraq? I mean anything short of Iraq killing a few more Americans.

NurseNell, I owe you an apology for jumping to the conclusion on your Rice for Peace post that you meant kids when you said school.

As for Bush’s daughter going to run down and enlist, no I doubt she will; and yes, G-dub did go into the National Guard. So did a few thousand others do what they did to avoid Vietnam…including Bill Clinton. Some of us on the other hand volunteered for duty. Didn’t wait for the draft. I fail to see what any of this has to do with rather or not Iraq is a threat and in violation of the U.N. resolution.

Tundra is certainly more correct than not on the issue of why we did not finish the job the first time. We had quite a dizzying number of operational agreements with various nations in the area during the Gulf War. Although the United Nations had no direct involvement in this process, it was these agreements that prevented us from going to Bagdad in the first place. Having had the priviledge to serve on the General Staff in theater during this conflict, I had first hand knowledge concerning most of the operational agreements. To make a long (and in some cases still classified) story short, we agreed to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait and perform additional military operations inside Iraq to secure the integrity of that nation. Our major stumbling block was the Saudis who simply would not countenance a full scale invasion and regime change.

The status quo is simply the conditions that exist. I have outlined what those conditions are at some length for Bob but he does not like the facts since they do not favor his position. I am beginning to agree with Flosum that Bob actualy thinks his opinion is more important than anyone elses. Certainly more important than those held by the rest of us uninformed Northwoods hicks. I have debated the relative merits of thousands of issues with thousands of people over the years. Those who personalize this process, as Bob appears to be unable to avoid, do, as Flosum maintains, need some serious help. Bob could be a productive force in this forum if he would lose the elitist attitude and the arrogance. I suspect, however, that this is not going to happen anytime soon. The rest of us know that disagreement does not make us enemies nor does it make one person more stupid than another nor does it make one opinion more important than another. I hope that on one of his peaceful walks in the woods, Bob will come to this realization.

Originally posted by JFlosum: As for Bush’s daughter going to run down and enlist, no I doubt she will; and yes, G-dub did go into the National Guard. So did a few thousand others do what they did to avoid Vietnam…including Bill Clinton. Some of us on the other hand volunteered for duty.[/QB]

Bush has twin daughters and neither one will emlist I'm quite sure. Bill Clinton, whom I liked no better than Bush, was a Rhodes Scholar and had a student deferment. Rhodes scholars are not exactly dumb. He also lucked out and got a high draft number. I just have a hard time when our commanders in chief haven't served their country. I suppose some will argue that Bush did but he only joined the guard to avoid going to Viet Nam, otherwise he wouldn't have gone.

The reason it matters about Bush's own daughters is that he expects other parents to send their sons and daughters to fight in Iraq while his daughters are safe at home being protected by the Secret Service.

I volunteered too and women didn't even have to serve.

I know we are going to war, nothing will stop it, it was planned long ago. And this war will plant even more seeds of hatred for America and Americans and the terrorism will continue. The bottom line is oil. Of course Saddam is a madman, and there's hundreds more like him in that part of the world. When young men are willing to blow up their bodies as suicide bombers you are talking of a deep, deep hatred that won't go away after this war, which will kill thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. And probably thousands of American men and women.

Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

There he goes again. More evasions from Dave. I'm not talking about opinion. There is, for debate purposes, a very well defined requirement for identifying what constitutes the "status quo." Check any reputable dictionary or any standard text on argumentation and debate. We are not at war; the Bush Administration is still trying to make the case for an invasion of Iraq to the American people and to the United Nations. Today, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, stated that war is still considered a last resort and that peace is still possible. An argument for going to war -- that is invading and occupying Iraq -- is an argument contrary to the current "status quo." If you don't want to attempt making such a case with the standard rules of evidence and reasoning applying, I can understand that. But don't attempt to suggest that my "opinion" about the status quo is preventing such an exchange. For those that are still interesting in looking at evidence, read the comments made to the Associate Press late yesterday by Republican Senator Hagel of Nebraska. Then tell me that war with Iraq represents the "status quo."

For Bob's benefit I will try to be as elementary as possible about this although I suspect even that will not help. The current policy of this country has been quite adequately laid out in Congressional resolution, Presidential address, military actions, and a host of other media. That policy, quite simply put, is that Iraq will be disarmed by the United States, hopefully through consort with the UN and our allies, but by us unilateraly if necessary. The Congress has already authorized this and it is in fact the policy of the United States. I could easily go to the Congressional record, speech texts, and other plentiful sources and use my mouse to copy them for reproduction here. Since I assume Bob already has read or heard most of them it seems a little stupid to do this but if he wants to continue to be obtuse about it I suppose we can. The only reason we are having this discussion in the first place is because Bob does not agree with the current policy of the United States regarding Iraq and wants to see us change it. The only problem is that he has not told us in specific what he wants to change about it, how he wants it changed, and why. Every member of this forum knows that the current policy of the United States is the disarmament of Iraq by unilateral military action if necessary. I venture to say that there are few Americans (excludng Bob of course) who do not know that this is our policy. That being the case, I fail to understand why Mr. Doolittle is having such a problem expressing the substance and rationale for changes he wants to make to current US Iraq policy. I postulate that if he continues to keep us in suspense for too much longer (say a few weeks) the subject of whether we should go to war with Iraq and Bob's thinking on the subject will be quite academic at best.

Dave is correct concerning Congressional action last fall concerning Iraq. But, of course, that's not the issue and Dave knows it. The issue is simply this: I challenged Dave to a debate in which he would make a case for what he clearly appears to advocate in repeated posts on this site: an invasion of Iraq. Dave has demurred. He would much rather have me accept the burden of proof for an argument for NOT GOING TO WAR which he could then refute in part if not in whole. He has argued that anyone who argues against the status quo must accept that burden. The issue then moves to what constitutes the "status quo." I've asked that that issue not be decided by me or by Dave but by reference to authoritative sources. If we're still talking about formal debate, the definition of the status quo requires that anyone who would propose a change from "what is normal" or "existing" must accept the primary burden of proof. Not even President Bush accepts an invasion and occupation of Iraq as fitting this definition. Yes, Congress -- with some very important reservations and qualifications -- authorized the President to go to war IF NECESSARY with Iraq. (And, yes, I have read the Congressional Record on this matter, have you, Dave?) If invasion and occupation "existed" or was "normal" we would not see the President trying repeatedly to make a case for invasion and occupation of Iraq before the American people and the United Nations. We would not hear Rumsfeld saying publicly that WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT INEVITABLE AND THAT AN INVASION REMAINS A LAST RESORT. The American people remain skeptical and (I trust) hopeful -- skeptical about the urgency of an invasion and occupation of Iraq and hopeful that bloodshed can be avoided. That describes the status quo. Now, if you want to make the case that an invasion and occupation of Iraq is justified and necessary following standard rules for debate and applying standard tests for evidence, then let's have at it. Your continued evasions are becoming tiresome and transparent. Perhaps as a former military man you assume a permanent mandate for war or, at least, an inviolable right to name the terms on which you are prepared to fight -- even intellectual battles. And, let's see if you can do it without all the personal attribution concerning motives and attitudes that you seem overly fond of using. Where you are prepared to debate without such baggage, I'll be more than happy to engage with you. If you want to play games with my name or make other personal aspersions, find someone else to address or maybe another board where such nonsense is permitted.

Well, I guess Dave doesn't want to "raise the bar" of discussion and debate on this message bar given the tenor of his recent posts and his attempt to shift ground from arguing the case for invasion and occupation of Iraq to a question of whether or not Congress and the President agreed to a resolution that, while qualified, authorizes action against Iraq IF NECESSARY to guarantee the safety and security of the United States. To even suggest that that is tantamount to authorizing an invasion and occupation of Iraq is at best a stretch and at worst intellectually dishonest. There is to the dismay of folks like DAVE and FlOSUM another side and a noble tradition to protest. Yes, protests are often uncomfortable for people wedded to the "status quo" as DAVE defines it. But this country came into being as a result of noble protestors who were, indeed, "anti" something. Our history is replete with protestors who brought about freedom for slaves, equal rights for all regardless of race, sex, age, religious or political affiliation, etc. And, anti-war protests have filled our history. Lots of people protested the Vietnam War and received bestings, jail, ridicule, and worse for their efforts. And thrity years later the people who led us into that miserable war told us that it was a mistake. I suggest anyone with concern for the lives of our troops and the innocent people in Iraq who will suffer in an invasion and occupation go to:http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ and read what a soldier who fought in "Desert Storm" has to say about another war with Iraq.

Tundra is absolutely correct. Mr. Doolittle appears to have little or nothing to offer except his own opinion in these matters. I would be happy to hear even that since I believe that all opinions have equal value except that he will not share it with us. He has already lost the battle of the "status quo" and now hopes to obscure the real issues with long posts containing 90% spleen and about 10% substance. He appears to want a change in the present US policy towards Iraq but does not have the ability to come out from between the lines to tell us about it. Mr. Doolittle is obviously against war....how much and to what extent he has not told us. Is his arguement with war itself...only war with Iraq....somewhere in between? We may never know.

Not that it matters particularly but I am a soldier who fought in the Persian Gulf. I must admit that most of my experience with the subject of war is first hand (VietNam, Panama, Yugoslavia, Persian Gulf, Cold War, and a few other more minor engagements) so I am probably not as qualified as Bob Doolittle to pontificate on the subject. I do have some minor academic credits including graduation from the Army Command and General Staff College, graduation from the Army War College, and a brief stint on the faculty of the last mentioned institution. These credentials, along with my 30 years of active service, I am sure will be totaly discredited by Mr. Doolittle, and will somehow disqualify me from making any further comment on the subject of war. Please listen to him carefully as I am sure that he really knows what he is talking about and is far more knowledgeable than I.

Bob, to compare what you are doing to the protesting of slavery and most of the other causes you mentioned is disgraceful. The protesting that lead to American’s independence, freedom of slavery were protests in an effort to support the “overthrow” of oppression. You are protesting in favor of the oppressors, in effect aiding and abetting the enemy. Are you related to Jane Fonda?

If the pacifists had ruled the day through out history, how would the likes of brutal dictators such as Genghis Kahn, Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and others been dealt with? Does anyone really thing any of these madmen could have possible been contained via diplomatic channels? Now the world is confronted with the same kind of evil and brutal dictator in Iraq. Bob and others want to talk him into submission.

Dave, I congratulate you on a great career. But most of all I thank you for your service to our country. It is a shame that too many people just do not realize how fortunate they are that there are people like you willing to make scarifies so they can live in freedom. It’s ironic that so many people have to fight, and yes all too often die, to protect the way of life that allows others the freedom to protest the very actions that gives them those freedoms.